I’m No Victim

I’m puzzled at the lack of reading comprehension by internet pundits. There are a few stories popping up – in The Advocate and one or two on HuffPo on a recent Google alert — claiming I’m playing “the victim card” over here on my blog. However, anyone who actually read my post would know that I simply made two claims:

1. Those who claim to be loving and tolerant certainly are hateful and bullying.

2. But despite their efforts at name-calling and even their threats, I won’t be deterred from speaking out.

Here’s what I said:

“Here’s a news flash, guys. Your hate and bullying don’t work. People see through it, and they don’t like to be pushed around. You think it’s completely obvious that you’re right, but this younger generation is more pro-life than their parents, and voters just keep defending traditional marriage. Why? Why would we if you’ve been telling us what to think for all these years?

Because we think for ourselves. And we’ll keep thinking for ourselves no matter what you call us. So keep sending the hate, but realize that hate doesn’t win arguments.”

So, this is what professional pundits are calling “playing the victim?”

Those pundits have lied about you since you were 17. Keep speaking out. Their goal is to shut you up. We’re looking forward to your new show.

http://www.krusereportersblog.com Margie Kruse

While I don’t always agree with your positions, Bristol, I find you articulate, grounded and focused. It’s okay that we disagree; absolute agreement is not a requirement for respecting your opinions. You write so eloquently and you are unwavering in your opinions and that is so respectable! I keep coming back for more on this blog because you’re a good read. No, Ms. Palin, you are not a victim! And I did find something to agree with on today’s post: “Those who claim to be loving and tolerant certainly are hateful and bullying.” You couldn’t be more right!

SKH

Sorry but the term “little Bitches” just comes to mind and seems to apply to these so called “pundits” Hey, ass-hats!! Get off her back for Gawds sake, would ya? #attentionwhores

Mrs. Sixx

Oh, but I thought it was only the left who called people names. Hypocrite.

Claire

Way to go Bristol! This seems to impersonal to post as a comment on your blog, but I want to say Thank You for continuing to speak out for our generation. I love reading your blog and I feel quite motivated to become more involved. I just wish I had your candor and tact in writing. One of the things I need to work most at is speaking more tactfully, because I get so worked up by the liberals trying to infringe on my freedoms and work their agenda that I just let my mouth go. Thank you for everything you do and for your inspirational blog posts!

Keep doing what you are doing, Bristol!! Continue to make the liberal’s heads explode!

Paulette

Makes me laugh! Whoa, why are they attacking you or what you say? Because they are listening to every word you say. Which is great! This gives you the platform you want & need to voice the truth in boldness! Continue to stand strong in your faith! Continue to put on the full armor of God!

ceil

you are so far from being a victim!! You have the courage of your convictions and that drives weak people crazy!! Keep it up. Millions agree with you.

Curt Wilson

I don’t think you are playing the victim and reasonable people don’t either. There are those who want to distract you and eventually shut you up. Bristol, keep up the good work and know that I for one am proud of you.

Justine Stewart

Well said Bristol!

Tom Murphy

Bristol, you are to be admired both for standing up and for being a courageous young woman in this day and age of whiners and crybabies. I have a daughter that is older than you by several years but she has always done exactly what you are doing, standing up for herself and for what is right and I love her sincerely for it every day. Sometimes she has to stand up to me, but even then I admire her, and more often than not, she is right at those times as well. You just keep on doing what you are doing and let the whining, lying, biased news media play their games. They will eventually be shown as losers like they always are once their heroes are gone from D.C. and they have nobody to kowtow any more.

Tim

If you disagree with the leftist world view, they want you to shut up. To achieve that they will vilify you.

Keep up the good work Bristol!

http://yahoo.com john norton

Keep on truckin… ~ !

http://www.artfulcynic.org Artfulcynic

People hear what they want to hear; and most reporters write stories fitting the narrative they WANT you to hear. I know what you said, and ‘they,’ of course, made your post into something it wasn’t. We politcally would probably disagree on lots of things; but it’s wrong to quote someone out context — adding things that were never implied or said — for the intent making someone into something they are not, just to score a political point.

Georgia

Well done, Bristol. Those who love and support you know well that you are hardly a victim. Consider the sources, which spew the venom towards you. The Advocate seems to forget that a middle-aged homosexual hater, for no reason, attacked you and your mother viciously, in the most disgusting ways, at the restaurant/bar in CA, and it was he who ended up looking like a disordered fool, while you stood your ground. He could not back up one comment that he made against you and your mother and the questions you asked him, in a polite and respectful manner, were never answered. He babbled and cursed you instead, showing that he was defeated. Be who you are, Bristol Palin. We are all so proud of you.

blueniner

Thats right Bristol you made that Homo hater at the Saddleback Bar look like the outraged fool that he was, he couldnt give you an answer when confronted. Just keep on doing what your doing Bristol, we got your back.

Surly Curmudgen

From witnessing the courage, fortitude and character of the Palins this nation might be well served by keeping a Palin in the oval office into the 2050s.

LeAnne Kilman

Keep it up, Bristol! They know you are not playing the victim, they just don’t want you to be heard bc you are honest and you keep them from being able to spew their lies and hatred, uncontested. They don’t like to play fair, never have. They expect to say what they want and shut out the people who speak the truth. The Internet is a thorn in their side. It shows their true colors and they sure don’t want that.

Nova

We’re all victims of the main stream media.

otlset

We’re all victims of Obama’s slick-talking prevarications and incompetency.

Georgia

Hear-hear, otlset!

Misty

Oh, those sites know exactly what they are doing. It’s what they always do with the name Palin attached. Twist and blow things out of proportion to make you and your family out in a bad light and get hits on their sites.

BobbyJoe

Bristol, you and your mother are professional victims. That’s how you make your money. The two of you say and do crazy things, get called out on it, then whine and complain about the “lamestream media.”

You made your money from being so called “victimized and bullied.” Not a great way to become rich. Kind of sad actually. Now you will be exploiting your son in a reality show to make more money. You are a sad, sad little girl Bristol. And all the money in the world won’t get you respect.

http://non82 Millie

BobbyJo,u Did someone take your joy away at some point in your life?? You are one of the haters. I hope you will find peace in your life soon. Will be praying for you.

otlset

BobbyJoe kindly provides us with a prime example of what Bristol is talking about! Liberals just can’t help themselves, they self-righteously step in it every time, especially when it comes to irrational vitriol and ad hominem attacks.

http://www.artfulcynic.org Artfulcynic

I viewed some of the comments below the link you provided (Advocate.com), and here are a few of them.

“Dumb fat cow ! she set standards of a un married wh*re with a b*stard child getting nailed in a tent ! now thats love” (Classy, huh.)

“I find it amazing that being a slut that has a baby without being married is just fine but somehow being Gay is just Evil. This apple truly didn’t fall far from the mind numbingly moronic Tree.” (She never said being gay was evil.)

“You know what you STINKING SL*T, I REALLY don’t care about you or your problems. You’re a good for nothing B*TCH just like your mother, and if YOU can’t take the heat, stay the PHUCK out of the kitchen. In other words keep you totally STUPID mouth SHUT! (Anger problems.)

Gee, intolerant much?

otlset

Hey I think I saw that one on the CNN board once! Oh well, if you’ve seen one hate-filled ignorant diatribe you’ve seen them all I s’pose. Heh, the left always out themselves, their character, and who they are with what they write.

http://www.artfulcynic.org Artfulcynic

Pretty much. Yet, they think they are so witty with the insults.

Marvin

You are not a victim, you have taken the lemons in your life and created lemonade.

julie

i am a young married 24 yr old mother of 2 daughters and i just wanted to let you know i find what youre doing with your blog very admirable. Everything you speak of is right on the money for a lot of our generation. You are giving young conservatives a voice that seems to be unattainable in the mainstream media, including fox news. Have you ever considered being a contributor for them like your mother is? i think its an ideal position for you to put the young conservative movement to the forefront. Lets face it everyone out their talking about our problems with the economy and lack of a moral compass will not actually feel its repercussions the way our generation and our childrens’. We need our voices to be heard and you have the means to do so. Keep up the good work

SuzieBB

I don’t see victim here at all. I see a woman standing strong and speaking out against hateful ignorance. Keep on doing what you do. I am always impressed every single time I read your blogs on how amazingly smart, articulate, firm in your beliefs and strong you are. Your parents must be extremely proud.

Hillary

Bristol, I may not agree with some of your stances but I can tell that you are a very smart girl with a good head on your shoulders. You are by no means a victim. In today’s world if you don’t agree with the media you are wrong, or an idiot. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and there is good and bad all across the political spectrum. I for one believe in Gay marriage, does that make me wrong? No. Because you believe in traditional marriage does that make you wrong? No. The world is full of opinions that differ, but we shouldn’t be name calling and driving hate towards one another just because they have a different opinion.

P.S: Love that you quoted Princess Bride.

http://jeremylundmark.wordpress.com Jeremy Lundmark

It’s not a “playing a card” when you’re actually the victim. That’s like saying little Susey is playing the victim card after mean Ashley punched her in the face. She’s not playing a “card” she actually IS the victim of assault.

It’s only “playing a card” when you are NOT what you ARE pretending to be.

The weird thing is, you weren’t playing the victim card, even though many times you actually ARE the victim. When the victim punches back… they’re still the victim, it’s just not as fun for the victimizer. When mean Ashley runs to mommy crying and says “little Susey punched me.” THAT’S “playing the victim card.”

Thomas Hubbard

Bristol, your right on, Why? No we are not victims for we have a victory through Christ Jesus! All that they say will go right back on them!

Whitney Bonin

If We all take a second to exam our lives there is a common similarity for all of us and that is we are attacked when we are threatened. You and your blog are obviously threatening to a lot of people today. As a devout Christian you and I both are subject to unwarranted attacks for standing firm in our beliefs as well. Keep standing firm in your beliefs and you will keep being attacked but as long as you maintain your faith that attack will be met by the ultimate army and deflected time and time again by the ultimate truth. Love conquers all.

http://crayfisher.wordpress.com votermom

So by standing up to the bullying you are a victim? Up is down with these haters.

Stephanie

YES PRINCESS BRIDE!! You’re not the victim. Love you Bristol!

Bruce O’H

Dear Bristol, look at you, you’ve become a culture warrior. Good Lord, you’re getting close to being included on my “hero’s list” Keep up the good work. We need every Mama Grizzly that’s willing to stand up on their hind legs and ROAR !!!! I’ll always defend you and Sarah to the best of my humble capacity.

http://non82 Millie

Bristol, This is what I admire so much about you. I admire alot of things about you but this is the top!! You stand up for what is right and what you believe in and nother is going to deter you from that. You are like your mom in that department. As long as you follow your heart, with God leading, stand up to your convictions and keep the faith that you have, you are going to be alright. You have alot of people and fans backing you up and as someone else has said you would be surprise how many!!!! Great job Bristol!

David Dempsey

Bristol, if these Lefties can’t get their point across without personal attacks like ‘name-calling’, they should not be allowed to post comments on your Blog. Many websites have rules against comments that use Personal Attacks, and if you complain, they will delete those comments. No one should be allowed to post comments (on any Website) using the Names that those Lefties were calling you on your Blog. Thanks for being strong and not being deterred from speaking your mind.

Mrs. Sixx

You obviously have not read all of the comments. There have been many, many civilized comments from people who did a very good job of explaining what was flatly incorrect about Bristol’s comments and citing correct information. Why will Bristol not answer those commenters? Because all she is interested in doing is stirring the pot and twisting others’ words to her advantage. If she really wanted to have good political discussion, she would answer the many many people who pointed out the errors in her post. She would explain why she posted those errors, and she would set the record straight. She won’t do that, though, because she is not interested in the truth. She is only interested in the attention.

AnyOldNameWillDo

Hi Bristol You’re no victim! Even the so-called neutral pundits have such biased predisposition when commenting on something. Instead of resisting their nature they seccumb to it. R.

http://EileenS Eileen Steller

The lefts goal is to wear you(and your family) down so that you wil give up and more importantly ,shut up. They very seldom use facts because there are none . They use smear and run tactics because it has worked against some people but not the Palins and that ticks them off so much, it drives them crazy. Someone suggested that you not allow nasty posts on your blog and perhaps that is something to consider, even for your peace of mind. Any threats against you or your family should be reported.

Joseph Russo III

“I’m puzzled at the lack of reading comprehension by internet pundits”

Same here. Except I am puzzled as to why they believe you actually write these posts and that you anything but a con-artist.

http://zjemptv.tumblr.com Denis

This happens all the time on the internet. Best to ignore any threats or non-argument related comments and address the issues please:

It’s not only the left that criticized Bristol for what she wrote in her post to Obama, the right was just as critical of her as the left. Bristol was accused of being a hypocrite in what wrote and they were correct. You don’t criticize someone for doing something you did and are still doing. Also, coming to you own defense instead of letting it go, gives the appearance you’re playing the victim, especially when you accuse them of being “bully’s” and “haters”. They weren’t bulling by giving their opinion on what she wrote. And if someone writes their opinion and points out why they believe that about Bristol’s post, it doesn’t makes them a “hater”. The term “hater” is used far too often and makes the person using it to appear as if they really don’t know of anything to legitimately complain about, so their either a hater, bully, or in this case both. All you’re doing is calling people names. So if someone writes and strongly disagrees with someone their a “bully” and a “hater” just sounds childish. And when you come to the defense of yourself instead of just letting it go, it does give a strong sense to others your being defensive. So now I will wait and see how long this post, which is my honest opinion, will be allowed to be posted instead of being censored because someone does’t like what it says.

otlset

“Also, coming to you (sic) own defense instead of letting it go, gives the appearance you’re playing the victim, especially when you accuse them of being “bully’s” (sic) and “haters”…”

“…And when you come to the defense of yourself instead of just letting it go, it does give a strong sense to others your (sic) being defensive.”

The days of conservative women just laying back and taking it (sit down and shut up) after being unjustly vilified are over M Baker. She has every right to defend herself vigorously from scurrilous and twisted attacks, and should be applauded for doing so.

Mrs. Sixx

“She has every right to defend herself vigorously from scurrilous and twisted attacks, and should be applauded for doing so.”

How is she defending herself? Has she bothered to answer ANY of the very credible questions that were asked of her? For instance: “You did not acknowledge that you blatantly mischaracterized Obama’s support for gay marriage. You did not provide any explanation for your use of tradition as an argument against marriage equality. You did not offer any evidence that “kids do better growing up in a mother/father home” or that same-sex parents are inferior. You did not explain why that would mean they should be deprived of the right to marry. Throughout all this, you gave no further defense of your position on gay marriage.”http://zjemptv.tumblr.com/post/23552799952/bristol-palin-not-a-victim-just-acting-like-one

Perhaps if she were to actually answer these questions, she might be taken more seriously.

Ed Fiskeaux

This quote pretty much sums it up from a Great Lady.

” I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left”. ~~~~~~~Margaret Thatcher

Bristol, One thing I’ve learned in my nearly 43 years on this earth: many people absolutely do not read or listen. You can “carefully couch” things, and in a public forum, someone, somewhere will find something to say about it. It’s not just in politics. It’s in the workplace as well, and it’s where we conduct business. I’ve ordered tea and gotten coffee in restaurants. There’s nothing wrong with my diction, I don’t have a heavy accent, and I’m not a “low talker.” The only way someone takes a one-syllable word and converts it to two syllables is by not listening. How much you want to cater to non-listeners and non-readers is ultimately a matter of how much patience you have. Everyone has their breaking point. As for the attacks on you: wholly unjustified; wholly inappropriate and wholly devoid of reason. At the end of the day, it is Obama who made an issue out of gay marriage, and I think there were two motives involved. He’s the one who – in his own words – sat down with his children and based on his conversation with them “evolved his position.” For my part, I think his children had absolutely nothing to do with it other than being a convenient justification for his new-found position. Obama had major fund-raisers coming up and the donors in question were tied to various groups for whom this was a hot-button issue. The Obama campaign would have lost untold tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars if he did not “evolve” his position. Money was at the root of this. The conversation with Sasha and Malia was used to sugar-coat what is painfully obvious to anyone who follows him or what he’s doing. Obama may be a lousy executive and a poor leader, but one thing he is very good at is fund-raising. The second motive is to create a distraction. This election is not a referendum on gay marriage or other social issues. It’s a referendum on the economy, federal government over-reach, and things like debt, deficit, and jobs. These are areas in which Obama has done poorly. And the time for which he can claim he inherited the problems has long come and gone. It’s his ownership and his watch. Period.

http://www.mrltavern.com Mr.L

“One thing I’ve learned in my nearly 43 years on this earth: many people absolutely do not read or listen. ” This is SO TRUE.

CJ

Dearest Bristol, 2 Corinthians 4: 8,9 8 We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; 9 persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. OXO

Mrs. Sixx

“So, let’s recap. Bristol, here’s what you did: You falsely implied that President Obama only chose to support marriage equality because of his daughters’ opinions, and you ignored everything else he said on the matter. You cited “thousands of years of thinking about marriage” as a reason why gay marriage is wrong. You claimed that “in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home”, contrary to actual studies about same-sex parenting. After people reacted to your statements, your only response was to quote a selection of rude comments and threats you’ve received, and accuse people of “hate and bullying”. You then said that they had no arguments against your views.

And here’s what you did not do:

You did not acknowledge that you blatantly mischaracterized Obama’s support for gay marriage. You did not provide any explanation for your use of tradition as an argument against marriage equality. You did not offer any evidence that “kids do better growing up in a mother/father home” or that same-sex parents are inferior. You did not explain why that would mean they should be deprived of the right to marry. Throughout all this, you gave no further defense of your position on gay marriage. Again, while death threats are clearly intolerable and repugnant, this is unfortunately par for the course for anyone of even slight notoriety online, let alone the daughter of a vice presidential candidate. Practically any discussion could be diverted from the issues at hand to how hostile some people are, and you’ve seized that opportunity shamelessly. You say, “Those who claim to be loving and tolerant certainly are hateful and bullying.” Really, all of them? Would that happen to include yourself? I’m sure you can see how misleading it is to accuse literally everyone who supports gay rights – or just love and tolerance – of being “hateful and bullying”, and this argument certainly doesn’t make you any more right.”

That is how you write a blog. Perhaps you could have Nancy give Zinnia call to give Nancy some pointers.

truga

Impressive, well written, educated note with excellent analysis and advice. I am very impressed with your comments. I agree. I’ve been concerned before with Bristol writing inflammatory political comments that are not supported. As I’ve said before, she needs a college education (like her mother has) and get good political advice and guidance before writing her comments. She is just not showing maturity and good experience.

Everyone interested in Down Syndrome and other abnormal genetic children, should contact and volunteer at one of the Fairview State Developmental Hospitals/Centers (do a google search: PA, CA, OR, etc.). I did one year of medical training at the Costa Mesa facility in the 1960s. Truga, M.D.

While I do not share your political views, and I am not q fan of your mother’s, I hav always liked you. You seem to have common sense and are a “normal” young person who makes mistakes, doesn’t whine about them, LEARNS from them, and moves on. I also wanted to say that I appreciate the fact that you leave critical comments up on your blog. That takes courage and sense. There are blogs and Facebook pages that do not leave any critical comments, giving the false impression that all comments are positive. Keep up the good work, kid. A liberal democratic Grandma Lisa S.

John

Dear Bristol

I loved reading your post! You are indeed a very smart and courageous young woman!

You’re stereotyping all people who support gay rights as bullies. Those death threats you received were a VERY small minority of the comments. You received plenty of well-thought-out and polite responses that were giving counter-arguments to your post yet you chose to ignore those. People would respect you a lot more if you engaged in debate and discussion with those who disagree with you, instead of just pointing to a few extreme comments and claim the other side of hypocrisy. As someone who supports gay rights, I can say that those people you received death threats from are not at all representative of what we stand for, and we despise them just as much as you do.

blackbird

Bristol Palin a victim… LMAO!!! Have any one noticed Bristol wielding a shotgun with mom and dad supervising… LOL!!! Victims don’t drive their pickup from Alaska to California they blame ATM’s for 9% unemployment.

blackbird

Bristol I think we know each other at least you know my comment history pretty good for me to offer an invitation to you to join me over at http://palin4america.com anytime that is convenient.

I know you are a very busy mom with a handful of joy there so please don’t feel pressured, just know we would love to have you join us, if just to say hello or your dad, mom, brother, aunt, boyfriend you can let them all know… come on over.

Lavender Pitt

She will never love you the way you love her.

MattZuke

“but this younger generation is more pro-life than their parents, and voters just keep defending traditional marriage.”

NO ONE can be pro-life and against gay marriage since at present, children go unadopted. You see, gay marriage would open millions of homes to children. The demand would be so great, not only would it cover people like you who were not taught how to use birth control, but gays who want kids would have to adopt from over seas, children slated for infanticide. People like yourself promote a philosophy these children are better off dead than being raised by gays, which is pro-death, not pro-life.

And respectfully you ARE playing the victim card rather than addressing valid criticism like you having no evidence gays make inferior parents, inferior to single parents like yourself, or the core issue is are children better off dead? You also assert only a bible based marriage as being valid, where polygamy was actually the norm in the bible

Georgia

Matt Zuke — Unfortunately you failed to mention that because of the homosexual rhetoric that that they are fit to raise the children of others, Catholic adoption agencies were forced to close. No one is suggesting that children are better off dead than being adopted by homosexuals (more homosexual think in action here). Adjusted adults are suggesting that putting a child, in the hands of homosexuals, those who cannot function normally with the opposite sex for one dysfunction/disordered reason or another, instead of offering them a home with a mother and father, which is necessary for a child to understand the dynamics between the normal male and female relationship, are forcing children out of the frying pan and into the fire.

MattZuke

“No one is suggesting that children are better off dead than being adopted by homosexuals”

That’s exactly what’s being suggested. So long as children go unadopted, domestically and overseas where infanticide is practiced, not allowing gays to get married and adopt is making an objective choice for abortion and death.

“instead of offering them a home with a mother and father”

That’s not the proposition being presented. 80,000 children go unadopted each year in the US, children created by people just like Bristol. Gays getting married can provide homes to these children, a viable option for unplanned pregnancies, and infants and children overseas who otherwise would be killed.

“opposite sex for one dysfunction/disordered reason or another”

You’re just being a bigot here. Gay is not a dysfunction, nor a disorder. Gay has utility in our society in promoting love with population control. Gays in this context actually resolve a social problem of girls like Bristol who are not educated about the merits of birth control. So long as people like yourself promote philosophies that lead to unwanted pregnancies, we either need abortions or homes for these children.

“forcing children out of the frying pan and into the fire.”

The evidence would suggest there is no real difference between a gay household and a straight one, yet you still CHOOSE to let children die than be raised by gays. You’d need some SOLID evidence that children are better off dead than raised by gays.

Georgia

As I stated in my earlier reply, all children deserve to be raised by a mother and a father, which is a normal family unit. What makes homosexuals actually believe they they are capable to raising children properly? Children mostly do as their parents/caregivers do, Matt. How are homosexuals going to explain to a child that having sex with one’s own gender is dysfunction/disordered behavior, while they engage, in the practice.

I am not a bigot. I do not care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, as long as they do not break the law. However, I do care that homosexual organizations are attempting to force homosexual behavior (just another life choice) on OUR children in government schools and are attempting to equate marriage, which is exclusively the union between one MAN and one Woman, with homosexual pairings.

There is no proof, whatsoever, that homosexuality is innate/genetic. NONE! Even the APA had to change the wording of its pamphlet, on the subject, a few years ago, to reflect that fact. In addition, Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head of the Human Genome Project and one of the world’s leading scientists who works at the cutting edge of DNA, has concluded that “Homosexuality is not hardwired.”

The issue is that homosexuals should not adopt the children of others, without their approval, and should have no influence on government school children. Having sex with your own gender is chosen behavior by those who cannot function normally with the opposite sex, for one disordered reason or another.

Adoption in the case of homosexuals ought to be a moot issue.

Perhaps you and others may want to find out why homosexuality was ACTUALLY removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

“There is no proof, whatsoever, that homosexuality is innate/genetic. NONE! ”

Absolute garbage. There are NUMEROUS studies which indicate that gays are born that way. Homosexuality also occurs naturally in over 1500 animal species. The doctor you linked to is on the fringes of psychiatry. He has been vastly panned by the psychiatric community for his writings on homosexuality. In addition, homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder, which is why it is no longer found in the DSM.

Secondly, homosexuals no more want to force their children to be gay, than any other parent does. They have no need to explain to their children that same homosexual sex is dysfunction/disordered behavior because it is NOT! It is two human beings loving each other, just as they will love their children.

I certainly hope you do not have children, because you are an absolute bigot who should not be allowed to shape little minds.

Why don’t you stop listening to the organizations with agendas, and actually read about the UNBIASED studies that have been completed.

MattZuke

“all children deserve to be raised by a mother and a father, which is a normal family unit.”

Yet they are not, 80,000 go unadopted every year in the US alone. You also ignore single parents where the spouse has died, or unplanned pregnancies where one partner left. It’s sort of 50/50 whether a marriage will end in divorce.

“What makes homosexuals actually believe they they are capable to raising children properly?”

What makes you think they’re not. There are already valid citations that illustrate there is little difference by others, and again, you’re being dishonest about the proposition. The proposition is there ARE NOT ENOUGH male/females in partner ships willing to accept someone else’s child.

“How are homosexuals going to explain to a child that having sex with one’s own gender is dysfunction/disordered behavior,”

It’s not dysfunctional/disordered behavior. You actually concede this by citing the APA. But here is how you explain it, “I’m a man, I date men, that’s because I’m gay”.

“I am not a bigot.”

You are a bigot. You would rather children die than be raised by gays. We’re not talking abortion here, we’re talking about infanticide. This is the very thesis of a bigot, you would use death of children to preserve your point of view rather than accept positive change.

“There is no proof, whatsoever, that homosexuality is innate/genetic. NONE!”

Strawman alert. Science doesn’t do proof. Further, you’re being dishonest asserting genetic is the only determining factor regarding development before birth. It’s been established hormones play a role in the development of a child before birth. So you just conceded to being ignorant.

“Homosexuality is not hardwired”

If you actually READ the related study you’d observe the assertion that homosexuality is biological, but not hardwired. In any case it’s intellectually dishonest to assert a definitive over a disputed topic. In any case, thanks to the bible and other sources, we know it’s social norm for a certain percent of the population. There IS evidence people are born gay, even if a gay dad isn’t likely to produce gay kids. But research by David Featherstone (University of Illinois) suggests the opposite. Though genetic manipulation, they’re able to produce gay/bisexual fruit flies. This is useful as gay flies making love produce no offspring, thus we can produce insects to pollinate without risks of making a mess. It also kind of disproves YOUR assertion that genetics plays no role what so ever.

“The issue is that homosexuals should not adopt the children of others, without their approval”

So children should go unadopted, and kids in China should be killed. But wait, it’s not an issue giving up your Chinese daughter to two gay dudes in China from the parents perspective. It beats hitting her in the head with a rock, and it’s not very likely to be a sex slave. All they need to be is married, which you are opposed to, and you support infanticide.

In any case, the proposition proposed is children whose parents GAVE UP THEIR RIGHTS AS PARENTS. This is major intellectual dishonesty. You’d rather children who have been REJECTED BY THEIR PARENT(S), go UNADOPTED or MURDERED than raised by gays.

“Having sex with your own gender is chosen behavior by those who cannot function normally with the opposite sex”

This is just the bigot talking. They CAN’T function with the opposite sex because THEY ARE NOT PHYSICALLY ATTRACTED TO THE OPPOSITE SEX, THEY ARE FUCKING GAY. That’s what it means to be gay. The Sears catalog is the litmus test when you hit puberty. If you’re a boy and like looking at boys underwear, you’re likely gay. It’s typically not polar. Being gay is perfectly normal for roughly 10% of the population.

You’re just a bigot dude. Even if you accept two guys raising a kid is less preferred than a man and a woman, which is better the state, or two men. Which is better, two men, or dead. You actually support infanticide OVER two gays in a loving relationship taking on a kid.

Georgia

MattZuke, do you suggest that those who are not readily adopted ought to be farmed out to transvestites, transgenders, those who like to play baby, drink from one-liter baby bottles, soil their diapers and like to be changed by a pretend mommy? How about offering innocent and malleable children to those who have sex with shoes? Whatcha think? None of those behaviors are genetic either, Matt. They are the behaviors of severely damaged human beings. Like homosexual behavior, those behaviors, and other sexual dysfunctions, are chosen behaviors by those who cannot function or cannot function satisfactorily, with the opposite, sex because they are damaged human beings.

By the way Matt, you need fresh homosexual talking points. Yours are rather stale. As follows:

Fifty percent of American marriages are not ending in divorce. It’s fiction. A myth. A tragically discouraging urban legend.http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htm It is my opinion that homosexuals are not capable of raising children because they are seriously disordered and dysfunctional human beings.

I did not cite the APA. I shared that even the homosexual-heavy and homosexual supportive APA had to change its pamphlet to reflect the truth, that there is no proof, whatsoever, that homosexual behavior is innate/genetic. There is nothing to explain. You are trying to convince yourself. Those who cannot function normally with the opposite sex are disordered. Period. It’s not rocket science, Matt.

Anyone that does not support your beliefs regarding your sexual choices is a bigot to you, Matt. The nature of the beast.

“There is no proof, whatsoever, that homosexuality is innate/genetic. NONE!”

Proof Matt. Let’s see the proof that hormones create homosexuals.

Homosexuals have been attempting to prove that homosexuality is genetic for over a generation and ALL of the studies have been debunked, Matt. ALL of them. Let’s see. Is bisexuality genetic, too? How about those who engage in shoe fetishes? Do ya think that there is a transvestite gene, too. Proof Matt. Let’s see the proof.

The fact that homosexuality is not hardwired is the proof. The behavior is not genetic. There is nothing to dispute.

If you want to use fruit flies and monkeys and other beasts and insects to prove your “imaginary” case, please consider that insects often eat their mates, directly after mating, most are not monogamous, and mammals commit infanticide, on a regular basis and of course they eat their own feces. We’re talking about human beings here, Matt. Not beasts but if you want to equate yourself with beasts, so be it. Comments like “…kinda disproves…” are adolescent and mean nothing.

No child ought to be killed, here, in China or anywhere but that does not mean it is okay to hand a child off to a dysfunctional and disordered adult to fulfill some sort of insane social engineering project or political correctness.

Homosexuals are not attracted to the opposite sex, because they are severely damaged, fractured, disordered and dysfunctional human beings. End of story.

Do all homosexuals have to play “shock jock” and use foul language to make their points?

As I stated, I am not a bigot. I simply do not agree with your foolish rhetoric, which is commonly spewed by homosexuals without a shred of proof. Have a good day, Matt.

MattZuke

“As I stated, I am not a bigot”

You are a bigot.

“MattZuke, do you suggest that those who are not readily adopted ought to be farmed out to transvestites, transgenders, those who like to play baby, drink from one-liter baby bottles, soil their diapers and like to be changed by a pretend mommy?”

If you claim to not be a bigot one more time, I’ll have to put rub your nose in the soiled dipper. Do you have evidence this is typical courtship for gay men, you’d still be a bigot. This is just a cheap scare tactic because you’re promoting infanticide over gays adopting a kid. Besides, AFAIK this is a hetrosexual thing AFAIK.

Gay just means someone is attracted to the same gender, that’s all. The only promotion is allowing kids to be adopted into stable households.

MattZuke

So let’s review, hetrosexuals can marry, pretend to be babies, shit in dipers, and eat it, and ADOPT A KID, but a homosexual can not, even if they don’t pretend to be a baby. In fact, is sexual morality even adopting criteria for hetrosexuals?

This makes you a bigot.

“The fact that homosexuality is not hardwired is the proof. The behavior is not genetic. There is nothing to dispute.”

Again, you assert genetics is the ONLY factor in per term development, which we know to be FALSE. Further, I already cited cases with fruit flys being forced to be gay with genetic manipulation.

“If you want to use fruit flies and monkeys and other beasts and insects to prove your “imaginary” case, please consider that insects often eat their mates, directly after mating, most are not monogamous, and mammals commit infanticide, on a regular basis and of course they eat their own feces. ”

Okay, how can an insect like a praying mantis, where the male only mates once before death, be anything but monogamous. We accept serial monogamy in cases where one spouse dies as monogamy, so you’re jumping the shark here.

This is what we call moving the goalposts, a form of intellectual dishonesty. Your assertion was homosexuality is NOT genetic. There is evidence to the contrary. “But they’re not human” doesn’t really count for much since IF homosexuality was NEVER genetic, then we wouldn’t be able to tweek the DNA of fruit flies to make them gay.

All your diatribe applies to humans as well. Humans are not monogamous, commit infanticide, eat their own feces and you already conceded to. In any case, this is an appeal to an extreme, which doesn’t apply since YOUR standard of evidence was genetic. Your assertion is falsified, homosexuality has been observed to be a genetic trait that can be triggered.

No wonder you jumped the shark. Your bigotry is based entirely on the idea that homosexuals are NOT born that way, an assertion that is not an objective fact. If it’s a choice, homos are perverts, and killing children is preferred to a pervert adopting one. But if homosexuality is natural, you’re just a inhuman bigot. The evidence leans toward homosexuality is natural, and has utility in population control.

MattZuke

“No child ought to be killed, here, in China or anywhere but that does not mean it is okay to hand a child off to a dysfunctional and disordered adult to fulfill some sort of insane social engineering project or political correctness.”

This is just passive aggressive speak for murder kids, better than raised by gays.

We need to look NO further than Ms. Palin here. She’s uneducated, dysfunctional, and a single parent. She has the right to breed even though she has NO ability what so ever to take care of a child. This is counter to your assertion that kids have the right to a mom and a dad.

Unless you can provide objective evidence that a stable gay couple, with a stable income, is inferior to a woman like Ms. Palin who can’t even figure out birth control, I’ll support gay marriage and gay adoption.

“Homosexuals are not attracted to the opposite sex, because they are severely damaged, fractured, disordered and dysfunctional human beings. End of story.”

Evidence? Oh wait, you’re just a bigot. You promote hate philosophy that justifies murdering of gays, and you tell yourself it’s okay because they’re not people. You don’t have any evidence homosexuals are sum humans worthy of nothing but extermination.

“As I stated, I am not a bigot. I simply do not agree with your foolish rhetoric, which is commonly spewed by homosexuals without a shred of proof.”

I’m not the bigot who proposes gays like to dress up as babies and poop in diapers. That’s just bat-shit crazy.

Anyhow the current area of research in regards to homosexuality is 1) Genes 2) Hormones 3) Birth order

As far as genes go, we have twin studies that show that if one twin is gay, the other twin is gay 70% of the time. If genetics was a null factor, there would be little difference over the general population. The evidence is stronger for genes playing a role in sexual preference than being right or left handed.

Birth order plays a role, the more boys a woman bears, the higher the odds that boy will be gay.

There is a lot more evidence supporting BORN that way than your assertion of being a sub-human pervert.

So yeah, you are a bigot.

MattZuke

“How about offering innocent and malleable children to those who have sex with shoes? Whatcha think? ”

This is allowed already. This is not an issue. Sexual behavior is NOT a criteria for adoption or procreation. You can have as much sex with as many shoes as you like. I’ve never heard of such a thing, but I’ll leave it to the Extremist Christians to be experts in deviant behavior. Shoe sex is not even covered in Levitician Law, and they are quite specific.

But I think you’re confusing having sex with shoes with shoe fetishism, which is actually not unusual to some degree. You are just a bigot

The only negative side effect to a child growing up with two same sex parents is other people’s bigotry.

Georgia

Dillinger — No disrespect intended, however, your statement is not necessarily true. Keep in mind, that homosexuals represent a mere 3% of the US population, while you digest the following information.

Administration Funds New HIV Prevention Initiative Targeting Gay and Bisexual Men | The White House

Google: Americans for Truth » Man-Boy Sex and the Murder of 10 Year Old …

Google: The tragic story of Jesse Dirkhising How confused 13-year-old died brutal death as a sex toy

Google: Boy slaughtered because he would not call moms lesbian lover Daddy

Google: Police arrest lesbians for ‘torturing’ boy, 5

Google: Lesbian Couple Drug, Torture and Starve Seven-Year-Old Boy

Google: Lesbian teacher Amanda Thompson

Google: Lesbian teacher rapist off hook no jail

SimplicityComplex

Well, that pretty much settles it. Apparently, given the compelling evidence you’ve provided, gays and lesbians are capable of abusing children, and they’re never fit to be parents because this means they must all be depraved and abusive. I guess that means that because of the likes of Riley Choate and Kimberly Kubina, Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz, Robert L. Gaskill, Larry and Carri Williams, Latoya Jackson and Jose Meza, Alexander and Lyudmila Kozlov, and Jason Dunikowski and Andreia Huffman, just to name a handful of heterosexual-identified horrific monsters, all heterosexual people should be kept from adopting or reproducing. Traffic’s going to be much more tolerable once the population starts thinning down. Oh yeah, there’s also the 2004 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study where biological (therefore presumably heterosexual) parents were the abusers in 77% of the confirmed cases of child abuse and neglect. I think that trumps the potential for negative side effects within 3% of the population, as you state the American homosexual population to be. Of course, an orphanage is much preferable to the horrors of a well-decorated home anyway. May your children grow to be better than you.

Georgia

SimplicityComplex, I never said “all”. There are homosexuals that would never hurt a child but there are many homosexuals that have and do, and homosexuals represent only 3% of the population. Staggering. Surely you are aware of NAMBLA and other like-minded groups? You may find this interesting:

Pedophilia of any kind is no more relatable to homosexual identity as it is to heterosexual identity. Saying that gays shouldn’t have access to kids because of groups like NAMBLA is like saying that Christians shouldn’t have access to kids because of the pedophilic atrocities of the Catholic clergy. It’s a hugely overreaching and repugnant generalization. I don’t know what brought you to feel so condemnatory to gays as abnormal and dysfunctioned, but I hope you don’t have the misfortune of being damaged in a similar fashion as the way this condemnatory mentality damages so many innocent people. Good day.

Georgia

SimplicityComplex, Regarding your comment about the Catholic Priest scandal, you appear to be poorly informed. Again, since homosexuals represent a mere 3% of the population, the number of sex crimes perpetrated on children by homosexuals is staggering.

I agree that the Catholic Church priest scandal was reprehensible! However, you missed a point somewhere along the line. Regarding the results of the John Jay Study conducted commissioned by America’s bishops (from 1950 forward) — found that 80 percent of the alleged victims were MALE! Did you get that SimplicityComplex? ALL Catholic priests are MALE. Since the John Jay Study presented its results, the Pope has made it clear that homosexuals may no longer serve as priests.

As I shared earlier, I do not care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, as long as they do not break the law. Good day to you, as well.

Sky

Would you call a male who is attracted to 8 year old little girls, heterosexual? No? Then why would you call a male who is attracted to 8 year old little boys, homosexual?

Homosexuals and heterosexuals are attracted to sexually mature adults.

Pedophiles are attracted to CHILDREN.

A pedophile will either have same-sex attraction or opposite sex attraction, sometimes both. But again, they are *neither* gay nor straight, THEY ARE PEDOPHILES.

It is intellectually dishonest to try to compare pedophilia with homosexuality.

Lavender Pitt

You’re disgusting.

MattZuke

“Keep in mind, that homosexuals represent a mere 3%”

So, because the Jews only represent a .22% world demographic, they have no entitlements? What about Native Americans, they only represent .9% in the US.

“Surely you are aware of NAMBLA and other like-minded groups?”

And surely YOU are aware that pedos in NAMbLA are married, make kids, and diddle them?

This is where you get disturbed. Homosexuals are defined as those who are attracted to sexually mature people of their own gender. What you’re talking about are pedophiles. Pedophiles are threatened by secondary sexual attributes. I don’t fully understand pedophilia but you’re addressing your bigotry toward grown men, or women, who choose to share a bed with consenting adults. Being able to function sexually with an adult on a regular basis kind suggests they’re not a pedophile.

huntingmoose

First your mother at Fox, now you.

you both just make my day. The headache I got from accidental watching Obama 5 seconds is gone.

Charlie

Bristol, why do you even have a blog or say anything publicly at all if you can’t handle the criticism thrown your way? You say something, there will always be people who disagree with it. That’s the way the world works! You’re not above criticism dear.

You’re generalizing and assuming that two men or two women can’t provide a happy household for youngsters, yet you blithely ignore the fact that children who were raised by straight parents don’t always grow up to be well rounded, good natured, productive citizens of society. I could list tons of murderers, rapists, thieves, drug addicts, alcoholics, terrorists, abusers, etc. who all were raised by one man and one woman and still didn’t turn out to be perfect little angels obviously. Yet there are plenty of kids who have been raised by same sex couples that turn out just fine, likable, good natured solid productive citizens of society. What about them? Can we just agree that what the genders of a parent or what gender said parents are attracted to has next to NOTHING to do with raising a child? There are more important fundamental qualities we should look for in good parents, you’re merely looking at the outside and not the inside.

Joe Butterworth

Bristol, I’m not throwing out insults…just facts. I have read every word in this little “debate” or whatever you refer to it as. I have even read the comments. One thing I noticed is that you are just as hypocritical as those you condemn. And you are also just as biased as those you point the finger at. You even play the same game as the media that you enjoy critisizing by only drawing attention to those that oppose you and putting a little “spin” on the actual facts. You directly insulted the POTUS and his daughters and then say it’s okay for you to do that because you were just joking, for one example, but when others insult you it suddenly becomes bullying. What if they all said they were joking? Would it be okay then, by your standards? You call same sex marriage a sin and then forget to acknowledge that sex out of wedlock is also a sin. Doesn’t your Bible say that I should throw rocks at you or something? You say that all those against you are vicious bullies for what they say, and then omit the fact that your followers were being just as vicious and hurling death threats around. Or is it okay to threaten and insult liberals and gays in your opinion? The whole “They treat me like I’m not human…” bit was an obvious cry for sympathy over the can of worms you opened…and then you say “I’m not being a victim”. And lastly…yes, JWoww insulted you, and then you just insulted her right back which makes you no better. The difference is that JWoww came right at you with no fear, as did several others; meanwhile, you use passive-aggressive statements and double-talk so that you can later hide behind a false claim of innocence. Do you know who uses passive-aggressive manipulation the most to get attention for themselves? That’s right…people who like to play the victim. If you’re going to be brave enough to throw stones at life…don’t be so scared when life throws them back. (Yes, I purposely used your book title against you)

Eileen

Very well said!

GrizzlyMom

Just 14 more minutes to go. Time goes by so slowly.

Lavender Pitt

If having a father around to inform the kids’ viewpoint is so important, consider the last time your baby saw HIS father. If it was more than a week ago, you’re a fraud and a hypocrite- AGAIN.

Please stop riding what’s left of your mother’s coat-tails and get a real job. No-one wants you on TV except the people who like watching train-wrecks.

Have a nice day.

Erica Cook

Being pushed around? You mean like when that paster said he’d like to take all people against same sex marriage and put them in an electrified fence and watch them die?… Oh wait, no. it was us. You mean when people came after you to rape you until you agreed with same sex marriage. Oh, again no, that was us too to try and make lesbians strait. Maybe it was when schools said it was okay to attack you kids for being against marriage. Shoot, again that was to us for being gay. When were you pushed around?

Amalia

Yes, pushed around like Madeleine McAulay, a sixteen year old girl from North Carolina who got death threats over a video she put up detailing her support for traditional marriage (aka proper marriage). Or pushed around like Stacy Transacos a few months ago when she blogged about how she was sick of gay couples making out in public parks – she got death threats for that too. Or pushed around like Carrie Prejan, who offered her opinion on marriage when asked about it, and was harassed and threatened with rape and death.

The biggest and nastiest bullies are on your side of the aisle. Those are just three examples out of thousands.

MattZuke

“The biggest and nastiest bullies are on your side of the aisle. Those are just three examples out of thousands.”

As opposed to the Christians who actually exterminate the homosexuals.

In 2008 1617 hate crimes were reported 58.6% were against male homosexuals 25.7% were against homosexuals in general 12% were anti-lesbian 2% were anti-heterosexual 1.7% were anti bisexual

In short, extremist Christians actually murder homosexuals, or bully and harass them until the kill themselves. But somehow YOUR being bullied. Now I don’t condone the bozo who asserts that Bristol should “kill herself”, but you’re trying to put this into the same class of bullying as the risk of a extremist Christian bashing in the skull of a fag for Jesus. Murder and harassment that leads to suicide is okay in your book, but telling a bozo to kill themselves is worse?

Name withheld

I believe my rapist was heterosexual, Amalia. I would much rather have been “threatened” with rape by a “gay bully,” trust me.

MattZuke

“traditional marriage (aka proper marriage)”

First of all, there is no law prohibiting single moms from caring for a child. Second of all, traditional marriage was akin to slavery. Men could have as many wives as they could feed, and this is supported in the bible. Women were exchanged for livestock, money, or other goods. This IS traditional marriage.

There was NO church involved in traditional marriage. It was often an arrangement between the parents, and the “wedding” was the first night of coupling. The father of the bride had to keep tokens of virginity, as in the blood stained sheets, in the event the husband changed his mind and claimed she wasn’t a virgin. Non-virgins, or no bloody sheets, were subject to stoning. Coupling = married. This would apply if you were raped.

The whole concept of courtship, allowing people to decide who they marry is NON-TRADITIONAL.

It kind of helps to actually READ the bible.

Georgia

Perhaps it is you who ought to read the Bible, Matt. Christians believe that God is the Church. Traditional marriage has been proscribed by God. Here is what the Bible says about men and women and marrying but I will start by letting you know what Christ actually says about judging, not the tripe spewed by homosexuals. I expect you or someone else to say that Christ does not want us to judge.

For your edification:

Matthew 7 1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

The passage is not teaching “NOT to judge” just “HOW to judge”.

Matthew 19 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

********************************************************** Matthew 7:1-5 includes Jesus’ warning about trying to take a speck out of a neighbor’s eye while ignoring the log in your own eye. In verse five, Jesus makes clear the audience he is addressing: “You hypocrite!” When Jesus says “Do not judge,” he is warning people against heaping criticism and condemnation on others without being willing to examine one’s own behavior. Clearly the context is one in which some religious leaders were harshly condemning other people while attempting to justify their own sinfulness.

Furthermore, many people are unaware of balancing texts about judging in the rest of the New Testament. These include Jesus’ command “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment” (John 7:24, NRSV), and Paul’s rhetorical question “Is it not those who are inside [the church] that you are to judge?” (1 Cor. 5:12). Clearly not all judging is forbidden. I’m sure you hate that fact, Matt. If that were the case, the church could have no boundaries; the body of Christ would not be a body but a gaseous vapor!

Paul urged the Corinthian church to exclude the man who was living with his father’s wife; he ordered them not to associate with people who claim to be Christians but live blatantly sinful lives without repentance (1 Cor. 5). Did Paul simply forget Jesus’ command not to judge? Was he unaware of it? That’s doubtful. Rather, we should suppose that Jesus meant only to condemn hypocritical judging. When the church must discipline a member, it should always do so in full recognition of everyone’s lack of perfection and need of the Savior.

You can find an Old and New Testament in any bookstore, at Amazon, etc. Have a good day, Matt.

MattZuke

“Perhaps it is you who ought to read the Bible, Matt. Christians believe that God is the Church.”

Yes, so you concede my point. Marriage is NOT a state matter. Deut 22:13-21 virginity is required, or the women gets stoned.

But let’s review

Gen 4:1 – Let there be incest Gen 20:12 More incest, Abraham and his sister, well half sister as Abraham’s father had many “wives”. Gen 16:3 And took the maid Hagar “and became my wife”

So what does this mean, it means polygamy was accepted and the ACT of copulation equates to marriage.

Deut 22:28-29 Again, the act of rape is marriage, but compensation to the father is required, 50 shekels of silver.

Judges 21:7-23 Kill the people, but save the virgins, all 400 of them.

1 Chron 2:34 In this case marriage is between a man and a slave dad hired to rape her.

So to review, the act of coupling IS marriage in the context of the bible. This includes rape, the rape fee includes the person you raped. Polygamy is endorsed, as is incest, which is slightly better than incest with monogamy.

And yeah, YOU should read your bible

MattZuke

“You can find an Old and New Testament in any bookstore, at Amazon, etc. Have a good day, Matt”

You do understand that the the folks depicted in the bible didn’t speak English. This is why we have tools like Strong’s numbers to easily facilitate looking up the meaning of words and their meaning in the language from where they’re translated. Even then you have to take into account that much of the NT was translated into Koine, with limited transliteration, from what ever variation of Aramaic Jesus would have spoken. “Eli eli lema sabachthani” (Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34) suggests Jesus’s language Aramaic, as would “Talitha koum” (Mark 5:41), though it’s not cited in Luke 8:54 or Matt 9:24. Remember, if we accept the bible as truth, Jesus spoke mainly to peasants.

So nice condensation, but you see I actually had “some” bible education, the real kind. It’s limited but trumps uneducated bigots like yourself who NEVER used any form of study bible.

Regardless, I demonstrated my point. Marriage was the act of coupling, which required a woman to be a virgin. Polygamy was normal, thus “traditional” marriage means selling your daughter to a man who might already have a wife. If she’s not a virgin, she’d dead.

BobbyJoe

You are a disgusting human being AMELIA. PERIOD

Louis Schnitzer

Apparently, you have not read all of the ignorant and hate-filled things that have been said against Bristol by those trying to “shut her down”. I certainly have, and its disgusting. Last time I checked, we had a First Amendment in America. You may strongly disagree with her views, but attempting to demonize her or launching personal attacks against her is just ignorant. Good arguments will always stand up by themselves in what one philosopher described as the “competition in the market-place of ideas”. Lets keep it about Ideas, not about insults. Just because we believe in traditional morality does not make us “haters” any more than the Pope or Billy Graham, or Jesus himself (who had plenty to say about sexual morality) should be described as a “hater”. Disagree with opinions, but don’t launch personal attacks, especially if you call yourself a “humanist” or a believer in “free speech”.

Georgia

MattZuke — I’ve shared al that I have to say to you. You babble and provide no proof. You are boring me.

MattZuke

“You babble and provide no proof”

Actually there is tons of evidence that support the idea of being born that way. You are just a bigot who supports infanticide over gays adopting kids.

You’re just projecting on the “proof” front. All you have is the assertion homosexuals are sub-human scum, and the assertion genes play no role. If that assertion was true, then twin studies would not show 70% connection that twin is gay, the other twin is gay. We wouldn’t have genetic evidence in fruit flies that they can be manipulated to being gay.

You see, to validate your bigotry YOU need evidence, and that evidence doesn’t exist. What people do in the bedroom plays no factor in adopting kids, well, unless they are kid fuckers. Hetrosexuals are allowed to adopt kids even if one dresses up like a baby and poops in a diaper, and the other person eats it. But homosexuals are not granted the same right, even though you have NO evidence homosexuals engage in this behavior.

The person with the positive assertion has the burden of proof, and YOU need STRONG evidence that homosexuals should be rounded up and put in concentration camps with electric fences.

Amalia

Your faux outrage is tiresome. There’s plenty of proof to assert the idea that the best home for children is one in which there is a male father and female mother present. The studies you refer to are all flawed and biased. But go ahead with your fake indignation and name calling. It shows you for what you really are – an intolerant, hypocritical bully.

MattZuke

“There’s plenty of proof to assert the idea that the best home for children is one in which there is a male father and female mother present. The studies you refer to are all flawed and biased.”

The proposition being proposed is unwanted children, and children slated for infanticide, not children already in stable heterosexual homes. No one is proposing taking children in stable families and transplanting them to homosexual homes. That’s patently silly.

The objective reality is 80,000 children go unadopted each year, so even if you have evidence homosexual parents are inferior to heterosexual parents, and you don’t, homosexual parents only need to be better than having NO parents, or single parents.

Asserting THOSE studies are FLAWED isn’t really evidence of anything. It’ just means you’re a bigot who accepts preconception over observation. I started thinking “I don’t know if gays make acceptable parents” then looked for the evidence. The evidence would suggest they are equal to hetrosexual parents.

“It shows you for what you really are – an intolerant, hypocritical bully.”

Sure, rounding up homosexuals and putting them in concentration camps with electric fences is tolerant. Exterminating homosexuals in the name of Jesus is tolerance, accepting minorities is intolerant. Denying kids a gay home IN FAVOR OF INFANTICIDE is tolerance, letting gays adopt kids who otherwise would be killed is bullying?

What the flying hell are you smoking?

Mrs. Sixx

Hogwash! And you know it. The majority of studies today state that children do just as well in same sex parent home as they do in an opposite sex parent home. In fact there have been recent studies which seem to indicate that children of two mother homes do the best of all. This makes absolute sense if you think about it; mothers are, after all the natural nurturers. If there are two in the house, the children are going to have two nurturing parents (not always the case if the father is not a nurturer).

I don’t even know why I am bothering with you. You obviously will not listen to science or facts or reason. You choose to leave your blinders on so that you can keep your myopic world view. I actually feel sorry for you.

Georgia

Amalia, Well said.

MattZuke

“Amalia, Well said.”

Not really, it’s just validation by an appeal to persecution. Homosexuals are harassed and killed. You yourself promote the philosophy that homosexuals are mentally ill and are more likely to be pedophiles, yet somehow YOU’RE being BULLIED.

I don’t support death threats, or even people who suggest you take your own life, which isn’t a death threat by the way. However, you’re trying to equate being told to kill yourself with minority persecution, perpetrated by extremist Christians. Somehow smashing the skulls of fags is okay in your book, but being mean to a fellow Christian is an unforgivable crime.

BobbyJoe

BOTH of You, GEORGIA and AMALIA are disgusting, bigoted human beings. IRAN would love to have you.

Georgia

Sky — Yes, I would call a male who is SEXUALLY attracted to an 8-year-old female child a heterosexual pedophile and I would call a male who is attracted to an 8-year-old male child a homosexual pedophile. It does not matter if heterosexual and homosexual men (or women) have sex with adults. If they are sexually attracted to children they are pedophiles.

Did you ever hear of NAMBLA? Here are some comments from leaders, in the homosexual community:

“The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality. For the gay community to imply that boy-love is not homosexual love is ridiculous.” – “No Place for Homo-Homophobia,” letter to the editor, *San Francisco Sentinel*, 26 March 1992.

“The age of consent is just one of the many ways in which adults impose their system of control on children.” – NAMBLA quoted in Shirley J. O’Brien’s article “The Child Molester,” *National Federation for Decency Journal*, May/June 1987, pp. 9-11.

“How many gay men, I wonder, would have missed out on a valuable, liberating experience — one that initiated them into their sexuality – if it weren’t for so-called molestation?” – Carl Maves, “Getting Over It,” *The Advocate*, 5 May 1992, p. 85.

“Boy-lovers and the lesbians who have young lovers … are not child molesters. The child abusers are priests, teachers, therapists, cops and parents who force their staid morality onto the young people in their custody.” – Pat Califia’s essay, “Man/Boy Love and the Lesbian/Gay Movement,” *The Age of Taboo: Gay Male Sexuality, Power and Consent, (Boston and London: Alyson Publications/Gay Men’s Press, 1981), p. 144…

It is you who appears to be intellectually dishonest or you are woefully misinformed, Sky. You need to do more than read your homosexual talking points. The sources are all there for your edification!

Even the United Nations had a lot to say on the subject. As follows:

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL DECIDES NOT TO GRANT CONSULTATIVE STATUS

TO INTERNATIONAL LESBIAN AND GAY ASSOCIATION

In Other Action, Council Adopts 2003 Work Programme, Grants Consultative Status to 56 NGOs [According to the NGO Committee report, the International Lesbian and Gay Association is an international organization previously on the roster. In 1994, one year after it had been granted consultative status, the Council suspended it, “based on concerns raised about its member organizations or subsidiaries that promoted or condoned paedophilia”. Subsequently, the NGO requested reinstatement of its status, but a number of delegations to the NGO Committee raised questions in that regard. The Committee made a recommendation to deny the consultative status to the International Lesbian and Gay Association.]

“Sky — Yes, I would call a male who is SEXUALLY attracted to an 8-year-old female child a heterosexual pedophile and I would call a male who is attracted to an 8-year-old male child a homosexual pedophile”

You can call them that as much as you like.

Here’s the thing about people who fuck 8 year olds, 8 year olds don’t have any secondary sexual attributes. There is not a ton of difference between a 8 year old girl and 8 year old boy. This is why pedophiles are in their own class.

“For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman” –http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

“Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as “fixated;” 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that “in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women….There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males…” (p.180).”

So sorry bigot

MattZuke

“Here are some comments from leaders, in the homosexual community:”

What is it with you Nazi Christians making bold assertions that “these are comments from LEADERS” when no one has ever heard of these people before, or citations taken out of context.

“This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.” –http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/swift1.asp

How does it feel to be intellectually dishonest. Take a quote out of context and it makes it look like Mr. Swift is advocating pedophilia. “Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.” I guess this is normal for Nazi Christians validating their pro-death cult.

The rest of your hate speech is citing NAMBLA, simply asserting they are part of the homosexual community. This is obviously a lie. But like with you Nazi Christians the right to free speech is used to hang yourselves. Unfortunately this form of hate speech results in the death of homosexuals, and somehow YOUR being bullied.

Georgia

MattZuke writes: “The rest of your hate speech is citing NAMBLA, simply asserting they are part of the homosexual community. This is obviously a lie…”

One of many Homosexual Pedophile Organizations: “The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a pedophile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States that works to abolish age of consent laws criminalizing male adult sexual involvement with minors and for the release of all men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion…”

Males who exclusively molest male children are homosexual pedophiles. Continue to lie to yourself, Matt. You confuse hate speech with facts and truth, as many homosexuals do.

MattZuke

“You confuse hate speech with facts”

No I don’t. You’re just a Nazi Christian who trying to promote hate on homosexuals, and ignore facts. Not only did you quote mine satire, but you’re being intellectually dishonest. Asserting NAMBLA are members of the homosexual community requires some strong evidence. The evidence suggests groups like Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation deplores NAMBLA’s goals, as well as National Gay and Lesbian Task Force which doesn’t support the abuse of minors.

“Males who exclusively molest male children are homosexual pedophiles. ”

No bigot. To be a homosexual or heterosexual you must a preference to engage is sexual relations with sexually mature members of your own gender, or the opposite gender. You concede that you require EVIDENCE that a pedophile picks boys over girls, and NOT choose the opposite gender in adults. The evidence is actually the reverse, Groth and Birnbaum (1978), none of the pedophiles were homosexuals. If you were intellectually honest, the norm would be bi-sexual. But as cited, there is not a ton of difference between a 8yo girl or boy.

So by your own logic, heterosexual couples should be bared from adopting as hetrosexuals are more likely to be child molesters than homosexuals.

Come on Bristol, you must have learned from your Mom’s experience that “they just make things up”. Bristol you can’t try to understand Haters with the rational that they are dealing with reality, and are being reasonable. There “NUTS!!!” Ignore them and understand they are not looking for conversation or debate. They want you do like they said in the Movie ‘Independence Day’: “To Die.” Your supporters know better. We enjoy your posts. Keep writing them, they will attract other sane people eventually.

Kristen

Bristol did cry victim of bulleying and she used what a selected few said out of her blog. She did not respond to people who had valid points. How can she say that people who come from a two parent heterosexual home, when she came from a two parent home and still made poor choices? How did she come up with the facts that kids do better in a two parent heterosexual home when there are studies that say the complete opposite? Bristol also brought up the traditional marriage that has been around thousands of years, but she has not did her research. Women was considered property, marriage was not about love, it was a business merger. It was all about bloodline. People were marrying their family members. That is the “traditional” marriage. If she believed in tradition, she would have gooten married to Levi before the world knew she was married. She wants to hide behind tradition as a cover up because she does not want to admit she is homophobic.

G.A.W

Good job failing to provide a real counter-argument. Oh wait, you thought you’d get away with alleging that “pundits” who are criticizing you are not taking into account your original statements about this matter. Well, you’re not. The pundit you’re passively responding, without as much as referring to the username of the critic, pointed out how instead of taking to task the arguments that non-intelligent trolls and/or flamers threw at you, you simply complained about people who were mean to you in response to your original post on this matter. You unfailingly succeeded in only stifling this conversation by pulling the exact same card I described once more. You should ignore all flamers & trolls that are undoubtedly going to swarm on anybody with a reputation who feels the need to opine on a topic. Then you can move onto more deserving individuals, such as ZJemptv (note to those who may be lost: the link in Palin’s article shown as “two” is a text article by the same user), because ZJemptv made a reasonable argument against you. You’re just ignoring the original argument and crying afoul of any attacks made against you that bore little to no substance in themselves. Here’s the thing; if you want to be taken seriously in this platform, how about you argument on merit and not what you’ve been complaining about in the last couple of articles. Hell, you didn’t even address the arguments that Zinnia Jones made in the article you linked; you just want us to pity you. Is that supposed to make your detractors back down? Could you have moved on from that within the same article you wrote and gone on to support your own positions? It boils down to this, based on what you shared with the world alone; you are not confident in your own positions, and can’t back them up at all. I’m pretty sure you would have done otherwise (as Zinnia Jones suggested you do, as stated in the article you linked), but that would take effort. This article is so short and bare on the substance factor that were I the editor of this site, I’d tell you that you should either expand on it or keep it from using up bandwidth. But I digress; I guess the apple doesn’t fall far from the “I screwed something up but I’m a victim!” tree.

Georgia

Bristol, here is a video made by an articulate 16-year-old girl, who appears to be the victim of bigotry for being a Christian with an opinion about homosexual marriage, based on her religious beliefs. I thought that you might relate to her and want to see it. Here is some info. on the video, which has been banned from YouTube for no apparent reason. As follows:

Teen’s Gay Marriage Video Banned By YouTube

“…The following video produced by sixteen-year-old Madeleine McAulay has been banned by YouTube because it did not meet their “community guidelines.” The video, which had garnered over 20,000 hits in only a week, was submitted to Breitbart News for consideration when it was first released. We are proud to host this video at Breitbart News and we invite everyone to Tweet it, Facebook it and embed it in their blogs. Not because we necessarily agree with Ms. McAulay, but because we believe, as our founder did, that our nation is stronger because of active and engaging debate of all ideas…”http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/05/27/Teens-Gay-Marriage-Video-Banned-By-YouTube

Georgia

MattZuke, I am a Christian. I follow the New Testament. here is some information regarding homosexuality, as it pertains to Christians. As follows:

Homosexuality was already strictly shunned and covered by Levitical proscription. Christ covered homosexuality when He said that He did not change the laws by “one jot or tittle”. As mentioned, Hebrew law strictly proscribed homosexuality, and so He supported that proscription when He endorsed Levitical law John 2:1-4 (His Father’s Law).

It was not until the faith expanded to such areas as Rome itself, where catemites and other homosexuals were common, that the issue needed to be addressed specifically, which is why the mention is made in Romans.

As far as the Jews were concerned, Christ covered homosexuality when he said that he did not change the laws by “one jot or tittle”. As mentioned, Hebrew law strictly proscribed homosexuality, and so he supported that proscription when he endorsed Levitical law.

Of course we must temper the prescribed penalties with Christ’s admonition that whoever is without sin should cast the first stone. In other words, while Christians may be justified in imposing the prescribed sanctions, they may or may not feel justified in doing so. However, that Christians are not required to impose the prescribed sanction in no way justifies the sin or removes a Christians obligation to call it sin when you see it.

See, what homosexuals do is to take the Christian charity of those who no longer impose the maximum penalty as justification for committing the sin. It’s like letting a thief off without cutting off his hand only to have him later claim that as proof that stealing is okay.

Those who follow Christ don’t need the training wheels of the Law, but rather have their meaning written in their hearts, as Isaiah prophesied. The proof that the laws are still in effect comes later in the same passage, in which Christ claims he did not change the law, when he says,

Matt 5:17-20 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. KJV

Christ tells a man who asks how to get into Heaven that he must obey the laws in this passage:

Matt 19:16-17 16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. KJV

Note that the word translated as “commandments”, the Greek entolas, means simply laws or precepts, and so refers to all the laws.

1 John 2:1-4 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. KJV

It is a pernicious and false doctrine that claims that Christ obviated the law. Christ denies it, the actual disciples who lived and walked with him deny it, and common sense denies it, Matt.

MattZuke

“MattZuke, I am a Christian. I follow the New Testament. here is some information regarding homosexuality, as it pertains to Christians. As follows:”

Actually, you’re a Nazi Christian. You accept a precept, and expect EVERYONE else to follow it, or else be put in concentration camps with electric fences. This is in 2011, not 1930http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2839yEazcs

Not like Pastor Worly, you are also ignorant as Levitical doesn’t cover lesbians, only male homosexuality. Even then, so long as a gay doesn’t engage in sexual relationships with a woman, that’s acting according to the letter of Leviticus.

Now you don’t even accept your own precept that the bible is absolute truth. Do you cut your hair or shave (19:27), do you plant different crops on in your yard, or wear cotton with wool(19:19)? Do you bar the disabled from church, or Koreans? (27:17-18). Do you eat pork or shellfish?

Your bigotry is based on selective enforcement. Levitican law is not enforced. We don’t kill children for cursing their parents (20:9) we don’t murder adulterers (20:10), or someone for shagging his father’s wife (not your mother) (20:11). We don’t burn the priest’s daughter for being a whore (21:9).

Your assertion that Christians follow Levitican law is counter to ALL objective reality, with the exception of isolated fringe Christians.

“It is a pernicious and false doctrine that claims that Christ obviated the law. Christ denies it, the actual disciples who lived and walked with him deny it, and common sense denies it, Matt.”

No bigot. See Romans 14:5, “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” Hebrews 8:6, Matthew 22 37-40; Galatians 5:14; John 13:34; Romans 13:10 Levitican law is ignored, and the most important command is love god, love your neighbor as yourself.

You also ignore Galatians 2:19-3:21 “if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing”, as well as James 2:8 “If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,”you are doing right.”

Even if you accept Leviticus, all laws were not written equal. Homosexuality, or specifically homosexuals who’d shag a woman the same way, is on the same level as eating lobster, or wearing wool with cotton.

So sorry bigot, even the bible doesn’t validate your bigotry. If you think personally homosexuality is wrong, don’t engage in homosexual acts. But your choice affects only you. We have the freedom of, and from, religion. The American Medical Association, The American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics Association, the American Association of Social Workers all agree SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS NOT A CHOICE, AND CAN NOT BE CHANGED.

Further, we also know that “god” himself made people homosexuals, specifically the converted Roman Pagans that relapsed to animal worship, God had a big old laugh when (s)he changed the Roman Pagans into homosexuals IN MID ACT. If you accept the bible as literal truth, you must accept that that GOD has the ability to make people into homosexuals, and it’s his/her will. Sorry bigot.

So in short, Christ didn’t endorse Leviticus, Christians as a whole don’t follow Levitican law, and even in the context of Levitican law, homosexuality was not a capital crime. You can accept the scientific consensus that homosexuality NOT A CHOICE, or the opinion of some Bronze age sheep shaggers who were trying to maximize population growth at the time. More over, you can choose to ignore objective reality that Levitican law is outmoded or get with the program.

MattZuke

“17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. KJV

Note that the word translated as “commandments”, the Greek entolas, means simply laws or precepts, and so refers to all the laws.”

Commandments (entolē) can refer to either the 10 commandments or Mosaic law. This part is true, however, you’re asserting Jesus was talking Mosaic law. How do we know he wasn’t? Because Jesus was asked which commandments and Jesus rehashed the 10. (Mat 19:18-19). That was the whole debate Jesus was sucked into, do we allow divorce for ANY REASON as prescribed in Deut 24.

I had to rehash this myself, so I can’t blame you for your ignorance, but the whole chapter deals with a debate OVER Mosiac law (Deut 24), whether it’s okay to “put away” (divorce) your wife if she is “unclean” for EVERY CAUSE. It was Jesus’s position that Moses allowed it because of the hardness of men’s hearts, and cited Genesis asserting GOD doesn’t desire it, except in cases of adultery, else divorce results in adultery. Even then, it’s allowed, but not required. If you don’t get it, Jesus is proposing IGNORING Mosaic law where adulators would be stoned in a box filed with manure until dead and plant a tree there (see also John 8).

So what does this mean, Jesus proposes ignoring Mosaic law, not just the killing bits, but justifications for divorce, such as talking to the husbands mother badly, not keeping her hair, or meeting someone better. But keeping the big 10.

Your citation here actually validates my position. Helps to actually read your bible, but to be fair I had to rehash it.

I think the reason people got fired up about ur post is because the way u said it. If u would of posted what u said on your second blog post about people being a bully, the first time u wouldnt of got so many unpleasant respones i think. There’s is nothing wrong with voicing your opinion but on topics such as same sex marriage these days is a very delicate topic in which one should be carefull in how they voice their opinion. Idk if u actually read these but thats my opinion.

Bianca

“Let’s not change thousands of years of thinking of traditional marriage” was the same arguement bigots used against interracial marriage. Are you homophobic AND racist? First the 16 year olds that didn’t like your family’s failed cancled show on TLC and now Obama’s teenage daughters? Bristol, how about YOU stop being a 21 year old bully and GROW UP! Maybe love thy neighbor for once… even if they’re gay.

Erin

Ah, Ms. Bristol, or is it Mrs.? I can’t keep up. A bit of advice in writing a blog, always use correct grammar or you tend to look…uneducated and quite dumb. Here’s an example from your blog. “Here’s a news flash, guys. Your hate and bullying don’t work.” Correction- change don’t to doesn’t.

To address the subject matter of your post, I think you should be playing the victim card. Why? Your last name is Palin dear. The hit movie Game Change (which was very good I might add) and the very funny show on HBO is DEDICATED to your mother. If I were you, I would be screaming and pointing “victim here!”. But that’s obviously not that case because you think differently. You think that our generation is “more pro-life than our parents”. I guess your mother never told you about why Roe vs. Wade was taken to the Supreme Court in 1973, or why the Personhood Amendment wouldn’t pass in Mississippi which is the most conservative state in the nation. I guess she also forgot to mention that Planned Parenthood will never lose its funding. It’s all pretty simple, really. Basically, it’s too big to fail. There are millions of women from Gloria Steinhem, Margaret Sanger, to Cecile Richards, to ordinary women like me who truly believe in women’s rights and are pro-choice. Many women are pro-choice, have terminated a pregnancy, and don’t regret it. I know you can’t comprehend that, but just remember everyone’s situation is different. Not everyone has supportive parents, this isn’t the 1970′s anymore. So for the cold hard truth— Your mom lost. You lost. We won. So do yourself and your family a favor and quit the circus blog act, common public opinion thinks you and your mom are only here to make money, and you are. You don’t care about what you believe in, you just got knocked up and found a way to make money because you can’t do anything else because you’re uneducated. Go educate yourself, get a college degree, and then come back and decide what you want to do. I may sound brutally rude, and honestly yes I really don’t like you, but I am trying to give you advice. Don’t choose the easy way out by all this publicity nonsense, go do something with your life. I’m sure this has been hard having so many haters. But once you have a degree, no one can take that away from you. People can take away your dignity, your self-esteem, they can hurt you, they can break you, but no one can take away your knowledge. Knowledge is power.

Alyssa

Erin, No one asked for your advise. If you were the grammer police, you would be fired. “Your mom lost” and “We” won? Grow up! When Obama was elected, WE all lost. I may sound brutally rude, but sincere when I say, Shut the hell up!

Valentine

Lol, “…once you have a degree, no one can take that away from you.” You actually look that highly upon a college education, and look down at those who do things “for the money.” You have absolutely NO idea how this world works outside of the cumfy confines of your pathetic narrow-minded self-absorbed postmodern existence. Seriously, your comments about knowledge make me weep for humanity that people like you exist and have to be delt with. I’ll bet you and your fellow haters attach your self-worth to your knowledge, which is why you feel so threatened by people like the Palins. After all, if they can have any worth in today’s society without learning the proper way to think from some BS college then everything you base your life on might be for naught. Typical closed-minded lib.

Btw, I just called you names. You should play the victim card; I’ll bet it will make you feel better.

Michele

I just had to reply to this: Erin, your nasty negative comments you should keep to yourself. Just because you have a college degree does not mean that you have common sense. Maybe your mother didn’t tell you if you have nothing nice to say don’t say anything at all. After reading your post – that is my advice to you! I am glad you didn’t post where you went to school because I read your comments and it sounded ignorant. . . Newsflash – our country lost with Obama and we see it everyday. . . Valuing human life is so important – more people need to be pro-life – and I believe in pro-choice – keep your legs closed it’s a choice! I applaud Bristol for her bravery and her values and I think that people like to give her a hard time to possibly say something so nasty to or about her mother is so immature. The only victim here is YOU, get a refund from any school you went to, they obviously didn’t do their job!!

John

LOL I actually came here to troll Bristol’s blog but I have to say you made yourself out to be quite an idiot too. I get annoyed by grammar police on the internet for the simple fact that noone holds whats written here to that high of a standard. THAT being said, if you are going to correct someone you better be right. Which you were not.

“Ah, Ms. Bristol, or is it Mrs.? I can’t keep up. A bit of advice in writing a blog, always use correct grammar or you tend to look…uneducated and quite dumb. Here’s an example from your blog. “Here’s a news flash, guys. Your hate and bullying don’t work.” Correction- change don’t to doesn’t.”

“does not” or doesn’t versus “do not” and don’t. “Hate and bullying don’t work” That is actually grammatically sound. This is because Hate and Bullying are two seperate things that when put together make a plural. “do not” and “don’t” are used in circumstances where you have a plural indirect object. Does not, however, is for singular. He does not. They do not. He doesn’t. They don’t. LOL as much as I can’t stand the incredibly stupid Palin clan I really can’t stand grammar police either. Allways stumbling across a typo and bringing it to light and usually because nothing more substantial could be said.

Robin

Who is looking uneducate now?! I also see some punctuation errors in your own writing–not to mention it is written with a mean tone. Calling people names like idiot and dumb is rude, immature, and very unethical. Why not just stop as saying “….makes you look uneducated?” Did you really have to add “and quite dumb”? When a person criticizes someone else and is mean about it, their words hold no water because there is something they can be criticized for as well. I hate hypocritical statements and actions. If a person wants to be respected, they should respect others. If someone wants to be heard, they should speak with a respectful tone–otherwise, no one gives a flying flip what they are saying. It will create no good outcome whatsoever.

Margaret Johnson

So Erin, how about you tell us a little bit about yourself? Can you tell us, please, what makes you God’s gift to the world? Because I am dying to know! You are the definite example of ignorant. You have your own beliefs, which is fine, just fine and dandy! Ms. Palin can have her own beliefs as well, such as pro-life. And you know what, that is fine and dandy too! I know it is really hard for you to comprehend that Erin, but try as hard as you can, as hard as your college education has given you! Ok? And for the record, a college education isn’t everything. I am about to wrap up mine and I can honestly say that sometimes it is experience and real world situations that teach you common sense and more about the world than you will ever know. Because you don’t have to PAY for those things, college is costly which in turns means that someone is setting the agenda to what you will be learning in college. Not everything is as one-sided as you may think. Just because someone does not have a college degree, does not mean they don’t get to think and have opinions as you said in your comment. I would say that is human rights at its finest, wouldn’t you? Being able to have your own opinion and “able to think” without meeting a standard set by someone as yourself. Good Grief.